Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-11-15 Thread Michael Patrick
> mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

I pulled down some samples from various areas around the world, and loaded
them into QGIS ( https://bit.ly/3ptp0AG  ).
A lot of the usage was very systematic, and obviously specific to projects,
micro-communities or individuals. Some were seamarks, gauging stations,
cell networks and other infrastructure components. The connotation in those
specialized use contexts is much different than the very generic denotation
one might find in the wiki, for example.
The difficulty is that the tag's meaning isn't isolated and stand alone, it
contributes meaning along with the other tags on the object, so it can aid
in categorization of that set.
For example, sometimes it seemed to refer to the placement base or
foundation ( rock outcrop vs. a building that provides most of the
elevation ), sometimes generalization of the particular material of the
structure ( mounting of stream gauges ), other times as simply a very
generic placeholder until more specific and detailed tagging could occur
when compared to other objects in a set. So basically, there are
potentially as many different specific meanings as features in various
geographical regions it is applied to.- some seemed hyperlocal and others
were sprinkled probably globally. If someone had OSM planet file
super-powers, they could probably be able to roll through changesets to
cluster and inventory the various collections by many iterations of
queries,to assess the impact of a replacement change, but it would be
impossible to know for sure if those results were correct.

Michael Patrick




>

Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-11-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 20:49, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

> Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.
>
> After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal
>

Probably the best, because it tried to go too far in one go.

- mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.
>

Yes, as came out with the discussion that Anders raised about basic
features, if we were starting them all off today, a lot of things in OSM
would be done very differently!

Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at
> best.
>

Both of these discussions certainly have been! It will be interesting to
see if anything comes of them in the long run?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-11-15 Thread Robert Delmenico
Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.

After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal -
mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.

Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at
best.


Kind Regards,


Rob.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 00:50, Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:
> > On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
> >>> It's the same reason we want
> >>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
> >>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
> >>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
> >>> joining in.
> >>
> >> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
> >> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
> >> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
> >> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
> >
> > I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
> > relevant to the discussion anyway.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
>
> If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic
> under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.
>
> >>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
> >>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
> >>> English-speaking men)
> >>
> >> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> >> wait, that would *still* be biased.
> >
> > Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)
>
> I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind
> someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.
>
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
> > grind [...]
>
> True.
>
> > [...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
> > said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
> > nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.
>
> Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of
> a term that has been historically and widely recognized as
> gender-neutral is biased.
>
> Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the
> impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced
> on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups
> that ultimately caused us to be having it.
>
> Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for
> me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the
> underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just
> ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is
> expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again,
> ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they
> vilify their opponents for using.)
>
> Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and
> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so]
> should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with
> the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-21 Thread Matthew Woehlke

On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:

On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:

It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in.


...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
being inimically opposed to "conservatives").


I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic 
under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.



If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men)


So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
wait, that would *still* be biased.


Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)


I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind 
someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind [...]


True.


[...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.


Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of 
a term that has been historically and widely recognized as 
gender-neutral is biased.


Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the 
impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced 
on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups 
that ultimately caused us to be having it.


Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for 
me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the 
underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just 
ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is 
expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again, 
ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they 
vilify their opponents for using.)


Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and 
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so] 
should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with 
the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Robert Delmenico
Nope, not trolling -

I have a genuine interest in what the OSM community thinks about the
proposal.

I for one though do think there is a bias - and I am entitled to hold that
view. There are others that support my view so therefore it exists.

A proposal will still be put forward as planned.

Kind regards,

Rob.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 12:48, Dave F via Tagging 
wrote:

> It appears so.
>
> Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote:
> >
> > At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging

It appears so.

Pretending there is a bias, doesn't mean there is one.

DaveF

On 21/10/2020 02:34, Phake Nick wrote:


At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
"Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting 
Different Results"


On 20/10/2020 19:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年10月21日週三 03:25,Justin Tracey  寫道:

> On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
> >> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
> >> English-speaking men)
> >
> > So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> > wait, that would *still* be biased.
>
> Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)
>


At this point it's clear enough OP is just trolling?

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Justin Tracey
On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>> It's the same reason we want
>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
>> joining in.
> 
> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
> 

I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.

>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>> English-speaking men)
> 
> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> wait, that would *still* be biased.

Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)

> 
> 
> The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John
> Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd
> are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups —
> trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what
> opinions are "allowed" and what aren't.
> 
> What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about
> eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one
> flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups
> should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather
> than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group.
> 
> 

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. If you have some specific
criticism of how someone is conducting themself, sure, bring it up, but
dragging the tagging mailing list into something that has no obvious
connection to tagging seems counterproductive.

Thanks,
 - Justin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. 
> Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument.


but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own. 


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Matthew Woehlke

On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:

It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in.


...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to 
polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as 
encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of 
being inimically opposed to "conservatives").



If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men)


So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh, 
wait, that would *still* be biased.



The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John 
Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd 
are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups — 
trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what 
opinions are "allowed" and what aren't.


What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about 
eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one 
flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups 
should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather 
than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group.



--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Matthew Woehlke

On 19/10/2020 18.46, Robert Delmenico wrote:

'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'


Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?


Because someone with a PC stick up their  decided to declare 
that "man made" meant "made by men" rather than "made by males" as used 
to be the case.



Besides, the correct solution is clearly to restore the original meaning 
of "man" to be gender neutral and to (re)introduce something else to 
mean "an adult male".



--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging

No.
In the context of OSM, think of man_made=bridge akin to a noun. The 
actual bridge object.

bridge=* is akin to an adjective/attribute of an object.

DaveF

On 20/10/2020 05:56, Robert Delmenico wrote:

Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
man_made=bridge is for areas
yes is for ways



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging

On 19/10/2020 15:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to 
identify adult males.


That's your misinterpretation.

You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the 
case. Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument. 
The results are always the same - Nothing happens, because almost 
everybody else comprehends the basics of the English language.


Option 4 is always the outcome.

DaveF




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and 
> bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.


no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
> 
> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning - 
> I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge.


they do not mean the same thing, one is a tag for a bridge, the other is a tag 
for highways, railways, waterways etc. to state they are on a bridge.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Robert Delmenico
But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and
bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them.

Rob

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:52 pm Andrew Harvey, 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico,  wrote:
>
>> They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with
>> different tags.
>>
>
> Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count
> man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's
> only road segments on a bridge not a bridge.
>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico,  wrote:

> They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with
> different tags.
>

Not quite if I want to count how many bridges there are you'd count
man_made=bridge. Counting bridge=yes would give you an overcount as it's
only road segments on a bridge not a bridge.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Robert Delmenico
They mean the same thing, we tag different aspects of a bridge with
different tags.

All bridges are man_made and all bridges are bridges.

Therefore if the tag for man_made=bridge was changed to bridge=yes, and
bridge=yes was used for both ways and areas then this would simplify the
tagging of bridges.

One would then use bridge=construction instead of construction=bridge to
match the standards used in buildings (building=construction).

If you take the buildings for example:
buildings=yes (area) is equivalent to man_made=building (not used) as all
buildings are man_made, yet we don't tag it as man_made rather just
building=yes for areas.

*If building=yes applies to areas, why doesn't bridge=yes apply to areas?*

The same stands for all other man_made tags.

Most common man_made tags:
man_made=pier could become pier=yes
man_made=storage_tank could become storage_tank=yes or
storage_tank=(content)

*Perhaps I'll drop the gender argument and go with man_made is actually not
required and perhaps we should tackle these one-by-one therefore reducing
the immediate changes required.*

Regards,

Rob.


On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Jo  wrote:

> They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been
> mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread.
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>
>> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
>> man_made=bridge is for areas
>> bridge=yes is for ways
>>
>> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others
>> meaning - I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge.
>>
>> Perhaps there could be a proposal to change man_made=bridge to bridge=yes
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 3:41 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au:
>>>
>>> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is
>>> somewhat superfluous.
>>>
>>> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>>>
>>> Are you aware that we have bridge=yes
>>> and man_made=bridge used with a
>>> different meaning?
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
>>> [value]=yes
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please read this article:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>>>
>>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>>> issues.
>>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>>>
>>> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Marriam-webster:
>>> ==
>>> Definition of man-made
>>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>>>
>>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>>>
>>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
>>> notice?
>>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>>>
>>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to
>>> the person giving birth.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Delmenico:
>>> >
>>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much
>>> interest in changing
>>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
>>> hearing the
>>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine.
>>> If there was no
>>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
>>> works yeah?
>>> >
>>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>>> >
>>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
>>> identify adult
>>> > males.
>>>
>>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>>
>>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
>>> decide that as I
>>> > am a adult male.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>>> issues.
>>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>>
>>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
>>> alternative
>>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>>
>>> Marriam-webster:
>>> ==
>>> Definition of man-made
>>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
>>> airline
>>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
>>> adapt to these
>>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>>

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Jo
They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been mentioned
2 or 3 times in this thread.

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico  wrote:

> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
>
> Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others
> meaning - I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge.
>
> Perhaps there could be a proposal to change man_made=bridge to bridge=yes
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 3:41 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au:
>>
>> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is
>> somewhat superfluous.
>>
>> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>>
>> Are you aware that we have bridge=yes
>> and man_made=bridge used with a
>> different meaning?
>>
>>
>> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
>> [value]=yes
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Please read this article:
>>
>>
>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>>
>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>> issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>>
>> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>>
>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>>
>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
>> notice?
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>>
>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
>> person giving birth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Robert Delmenico:
>> >
>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much
>> interest in changing
>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
>> hearing the
>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If
>> there was no
>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
>> works yeah?
>> >
>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>> >
>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
>> identify adult
>> > males.
>>
>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>
>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
>> decide that as I
>> > am a adult male.
>>
>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>> issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>
>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
>> alternative
>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>
>> Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>> ==
>>
>>
>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
>> airline
>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
>> adapt to these
>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>
>> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
man_made=bridge is for areas
bridge=yes is for ways

Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning
- I wouldn't think we would use natural=bridge.

Perhaps there could be a proposal to change man_made=bridge to bridge=yes

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 3:41 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au:
>
> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is
> somewhat superfluous.
>
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>
> Are you aware that we have bridge=yes
> and man_made=bridge used with a
> different meaning?
>
>
> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
> [value]=yes
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:
>
> Please read this article:
>
>
> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>
>
>
>
> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>
> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>
>
>
>
>
> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
> issues.
> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>
> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>
>
>
>
> 'Marriam-webster:
> ==
> Definition of man-made
> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>
>
>
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>
> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>
> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
> notice?
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>
>
>
>
>
> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>
> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
> person giving birth.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
> wrote:
>
> Robert Delmenico:
> >
> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest
> in changing
> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
> hearing the
> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If
> there was no
> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
> works yeah?
> >
> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
> >
> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
> identify adult
> > males.
>
> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>
> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
> decide that as I
> > am a adult male.
>
> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>
> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
> alternative
> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>
> Marriam-webster:
> ==
> Definition of man-made
> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
> ==
>
>
> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
> airline
> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
> adapt to these
> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>
> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



20 paź 2020, 00:52 od rob...@rtbk.com.au:

> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat 
> superfluous.
>
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>
Are you aware that we have bridge=yes
and man_made=bridge used with a 
different meaning?
>
> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to 
> [value]=yes
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, <> rob...@rtbk.com.au> > wrote:
>
>> Please read this article:
>>
>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>>
>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>>
>> Hence why I said who am I to decide! 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>>
>>
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>>
>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>>
>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you 
>> notice? 
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>>
>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the 
>> person giving birth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, <>> elga...@agol.dk>> > 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Delmenico:
>>>  > 
>>>  > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest 
>>> in changing 
>>>  > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in 
>>> hearing the 
>>>  > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If 
>>> there was no 
>>>  > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system 
>>> works yeah?
>>>  > 
>>>  > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>>>  > 
>>>  > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to 
>>> identify adult 
>>>  > males.
>>>  
>>>  Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>>  
>>>  > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to 
>>> decide that as I 
>>>  > am a adult male.
>>>  
>>>  It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
>>>  Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>>  
>>>  > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable 
>>> alternative 
>>>  > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>>  
>>>  Marriam-webster:
>>>  ==
>>>  Definition of man-made
>>>  : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>>>  ==
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to 
>>> airline 
>>>  > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should 
>>> adapt to these 
>>>  > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>>  
>>>  As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  -- 
>>>  Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>>  
>>>  ___
>>>  Tagging mailing list
>>>  >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 10/19/20 09:39, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> There are a few ways to go from here:
> 1: change man_made to human_made
> 2: change man_made to artificial
> 3: change man_made to some other term
> 4: leave man_made as is

What's so wrong with #4 here? What exact problem are we solving by
changing 4 million objects in the database to some other key?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 10/19/20 15:01, Justin Tracey wrote:
> I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but 
> to say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious 
> exaggeration.

How about naming the benefits this has, from your point of view, then?
It's a lot of work to change all 4 million of these tags, and we lose
the last edited date when we do this (i.e. if something hasn't been
touched for 5 years, and we make this frivolous change from man_made=*
to human_made=*, the object then shows as last edited that day, not 5
years ago).

> A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
> data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
> seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
> reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
> for community openness and understanding.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here.

> Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient
> weight to accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO
> being the impact on current data consumers), well that's the
> discussion we should be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero > sense 
> and smacks of change for the sake of change" is not a helpful>
part of that discussion.

Maybe it's not helpful to you. But I would like to think that the
opinion of someone who has contributed to the project for eight years
actually counts for something.

I'll repeat it: Making this change will destroy data on 4 million
objects for zero actual benefit, and for a primary reason that make zero
sense besides change for the sake of change. It should not be made for
at least these reasons, if not others as well. In fact, looking at it
again, the more I think this is likely a frivolous or joke proposal, and
should not even go as far as a vote. Something tells me if this was a
tag like highway=* we were talking about, we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 09:12, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

>  https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural
>

Using your own source to disprove your arguments!

https://www.lexico.com/definition/man-made

"Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made
naturally)"

So nothing to do with men, as opposed to women!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 20. Oct 2020, at 00:55, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat 
> superfluous.
> 
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes


clearly not, we are already using both. man_made=bridge is a feature, and every 
instance of this tag is representing a bridge.
bridge=yes is a property, we add it to highways and railways, and many 
instances of this tag can point to the very same bridge.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
|   Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any
other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?

Would they be considered natural? a definition is "existing in or derived
from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 10:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case  wrote:
>
>>
>> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial,
>> handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made,
>> and constructed" as options instead of man-made.
>
>
> Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or
> "constructed" would be good choices.
>
> Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any
> other type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
>> that as I am a adult male.
>>
>
> But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe
> to this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet
> weighed into the discussion?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
I like that!

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:59 am Walker Bradley, 
wrote:

> I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes
>
> Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could
> also have unnatural=
>
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>
> 
> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is
> somewhat superfluous.
>
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>
> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
> [value]=yes
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:
>
>> Please read this article:
>>
>>
>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>>
>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>> issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>>
>> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>>
>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>>
>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
>> notice?
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>>
>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
>> person giving birth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Delmenico:
>>> >
>>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much
>>> interest in changing
>>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
>>> hearing the
>>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine.
>>> If there was no
>>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
>>> works yeah?
>>> >
>>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>>> >
>>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
>>> identify adult
>>> > males.
>>>
>>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>>
>>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
>>> decide that as I
>>> > am a adult male.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>>> issues.
>>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>>
>>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
>>> alternative
>>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>>
>>> Marriam-webster:
>>> ==
>>> Definition of man-made
>>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
>>> airline
>>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
>>> adapt to these
>>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case  wrote:

>
> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade,
> hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and
> constructed" as options instead of man-made.


Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or
"constructed" would be good choices.

Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other
type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

>
> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
> that as I am a adult male.
>

But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe to
this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet
weighed into the discussion?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Jo
Bridge=yes is used as a complementary tag on highway and railway objects.

I was thinking of construction=bridge, but that already has another meaning
in OSM context.

I really don't like artificial as a tag. Maybe constructed_by_people...
Can't say that I like that either.

Polyglot

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 00:55 Robert Delmenico  wrote:

> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is
> somewhat superfluous.
>
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
>
> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
> [value]=yes
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:
>
>> Please read this article:
>>
>>
>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>>
>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>> issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>>
>> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>>
>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>>
>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
>> notice?
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>>
>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
>> person giving birth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Delmenico:
>>> >
>>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much
>>> interest in changing
>>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
>>> hearing the
>>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine.
>>> If there was no
>>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
>>> works yeah?
>>> >
>>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>>> >
>>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
>>> identify adult
>>> > males.
>>>
>>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>>
>>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
>>> decide that as I
>>> > am a adult male.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>>> issues.
>>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>>
>>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
>>> alternative
>>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>>
>>> Marriam-webster:
>>> ==
>>> Definition of man-made
>>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
>>> airline
>>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
>>> adapt to these
>>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Walker Bradley
I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes

Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could also 
have unnatural=

> On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat 
> superfluous.
> 
> Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes
> 
> Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to 
> [value]=yes
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:
>> Please read this article:
>> 
>> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>> 
>> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>> 
>> Hence why I said who am I to decide! 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 'Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>> 
>> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>> 
>> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you 
>> notice? 
>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>> 
>> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the 
>> person giving birth.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen,  wrote:
>>> Robert Delmenico:
>>> > 
>>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest 
>>> > in changing 
>>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in 
>>> > hearing the 
>>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If 
>>> > there was no 
>>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system 
>>> > works yeah?
>>> > 
>>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>>> > 
>>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to 
>>> > identify adult 
>>> > males.
>>> 
>>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>> 
>>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide 
>>> > that as I 
>>> > am a adult male.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
>>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>> 
>>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable 
>>> > alternative 
>>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>> 
>>> Marriam-webster:
>>> ==
>>> Definition of man-made
>>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to 
>>> > airline 
>>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should 
>>> > adapt to these 
>>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>> 
>>> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat
superfluous.

Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes

Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to
[value]=yes


Rob

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:

> Please read this article:
>
>
> https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage
>
>
>
>
> 'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'
>
> Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?
>
>
>
>
>
> 'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
> issues.
> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'
>
> Hence why I said who am I to decide!
>
>
>
>
> 'Marriam-webster:
> ==
> Definition of man-made
> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'
>
>
>
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/
>
> Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?
>
> Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
> notice?
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made
>
>
>
>
>
> 'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'
>
> Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
> person giving birth.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, 
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Delmenico:
>> >
>> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much
>> interest in changing
>> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
>> hearing the
>> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If
>> there was no
>> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
>> works yeah?
>> >
>> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>> >
>> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
>> identify adult
>> > males.
>>
>> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>>
>> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
>> decide that as I
>> > am a adult male.
>>
>> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these
>> issues.
>> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>>
>> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
>> alternative
>> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>>
>> Marriam-webster:
>> ==
>> Definition of man-made
>> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
>> ==
>>
>>
>> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
>> airline
>> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
>> adapt to these
>> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>>
>> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
Please read this article:

https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/index-fra.html?lang=fra=usage_7_gender_neutral_writing_questions_usage




'Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.'

Yes it does. Why would society also use women-made?





'It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
Why? Can't they speak for themselves?'

Hence why I said who am I to decide!




'Marriam-webster:
==
Definition of man-made
: manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings'


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/not-everything-is-man-made-13-amazing-inventions-you-can-thank-women-for/

Should we use the term man-made if it is made entirely by women?

Also, check out the translations in the Collins dictionary - what do you
notice?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/man-made





'As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.'

Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the
person giving birth.





On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen,  wrote:

> Robert Delmenico:
> >
> > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest
> in changing
> > the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in
> hearing the
> > thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If
> there was no
> > interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system
> works yeah?
> >
> > Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
> >
> > Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
> identify adult
> > males.
>
> Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.
>
> > I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to
> decide that as I
> > am a adult male.
>
> It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
> Why? Can't they speak for themselves?
>
> > I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
> alternative
> > exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>
> Marriam-webster:
> ==
> Definition of man-made
> : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
> ==
>
>
> > We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
> airline
> > attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should
> adapt to these
> > changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.
>
> As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.
>
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen

Robert Delmenico:


I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest in changing 
the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in hearing the 
thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If there was no 
interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system works yeah?


Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far

Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to identify adult 
males.


Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males.

I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I 
am a adult male.


It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues.
Why? Can't they speak for themselves?

I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable alternative 
exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.


Marriam-webster:
==
Definition of man-made
: manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings
==


We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to airline 
attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should adapt to these 
changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community.


As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.


--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Justin Tracey
On 2020-10-19 4:13 a.m., Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made.
>>
>> I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be
>> little discussion to date.
> [...]
> I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
> lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.
> 
> At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
> transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
> smacks of change for the sake of change.
> 

I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but to
say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious exaggeration.

A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
for community openness and understanding. It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in. If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men), even if those hints were just a result of change
in zeitgeist or popular language norms, then that has an impact on the
sort of people we attract as a community. (As an extreme example, it was
mentioned elsewhere that tags are nearly arbitrary identifiers, but if
all tags were randomly selected bits of profanity, I'm guessing everyone
here would agree, the community would be a lot smaller, and leave out a
lot of the more professional-oriented contributors.)

Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient weight to
accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO being the
impact on current data consumers), well that's the discussion we should
be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero sense and smacks of
change for the sake of change" is not a helpful part of that discussion.

Thanks,
 - Justin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Peter Elderson
Or, let's acknowledge that many distinctions are pointless because an awful lot 
of primary keys just mean "thing", so the key does not really matter, only the 
value counts. Who cares what the *  in *=bus_stop says, it's a bus stop.

Peter Elderson

>> Op 19 okt. 2020 om 19:43 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging 
>> :
>> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. 
> 
> 
> 
> if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets 
> get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the world, 
> where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in and 
> with the nature, as part of it.
> 
> And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also have 
> a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I agree that 
> "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather a renaming 
> with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like "man_made=works", 
> wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>


if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets
get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the world,
where human and nature aren't opposing poles but where the humans live in
and with the nature, as part of it.

And yes, if we are moving away from "man made" we can at this point also
have a look how the objects under this key could be organized better. I
agree that "artificial" would not be beneficial in this context, but rather
a renaming with the same issues (or even worse, think of things like
"man_made=works", wouldn't it be horrible to have "artificial=works"?)


Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Robert Delmenico <
rob...@rtbk.com.au>:

> Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you.
> Look forward to hearing more feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob
>


I am delighted to read you like the idea of switching to German language
for tagging.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
I feel like it is a cherry-picked list of comment.

在 2020年10月19日週一 22:42,Robert Delmenico  寫道:

>
> I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest
> in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was
> interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this
> proposal isn't just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it
> and move on - that's how the system works yeah?
>
> Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>
> Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
> identify adult males.
>
> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
> that as I am a adult male.
>
> I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
> alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>
> We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
> airline attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM
> should adapt to these changes if there is enough interest from the OSM
> community.
>
> I am open to alternatives and have been paying close attention to the
> feedback this far.
>
> I think artificial is a better term than man_made and human_made but there
> may be another better term out there.
>
> Dave F raises a good point though. Rather than seeing this as a gender
> issue, perhaps we should see it as the opposite of natural - because
> broadly speaking things are either natural or artificial. I see this in the
> sense of artificial, these would be considered things developed or created
> by humans.
>
> Sure it's a huge task, but regardless of the amount of tags to change I
> feel the change is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a way to implement a
> way to change a tag in bulk without affecting the date of the changeset,
> and with OSMF board approval if it affects more than 100,000 tags for
> example.
>
> There are a few ways to go from here:
> 1: change man_made to human_made
> 2: change man_made to artificial
> 3: change man_made to some other term
> 4: leave man_made as is
>
> I'm certainly leaning towards the second option.
>
> I feel that the public vote by the wiki will be an interesting exercise
> and I am glad that I have started this discussion.
>
> If the OSM community decides to stick with man_made I'm fine with that -
> even if I feel that there could be a better term out there to define these
> objects.
>
> Look forward to further discussion on this topic and I appreciate all
> feedback given thus far - being both for and against.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:02 am Paul Allen,  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural,
>> humans are natural.  Therefore anything humans make is natural,
>> just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural.
>>
>> If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then
>> everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks,
>> gardens, etc. is man_made.
>>
>> OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy.  There
>> is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of
>> taxonomy.  Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses
>> have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall
>> Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall.
>>
>>
>>>   We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps in some cases.  Where such need arises it happens, such as
>> with healthcare.
>>
>> On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without
>> any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease
>> the feelings of those who do not understand etymology.  Are we
>> to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand
>> etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"?
>>
>> That the proposer profusely thanks those who put forward
>> arguments against the change whilst apparently ignoring
>> those arguments does nothing to persuade me of the
>> merits of his/her case.  It smacks of the so-called
>> "non-confrontational" tactics that might better be
>> called "passive confrontational."
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
Also Paul,

I could be confrontational, but what's the point? I wanted feedback on the
proposal and wanted to hear what others had to say.

I wanted to take on the ideas to create a great proposal and highlight both
the pros and cons so that those who are voting are informed on the matter,
rather than that of just my opinion.

OSM users are entitled to vote how they like.

I'm not here to persuade as I feel that most who would vote on this
proposal are strongly for or against - merely I am raising a point that I
feel needs to be discussed.

Regards,



Rob

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:39 am Robert Delmenico,  wrote:

>
> I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest
> in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was
> interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this
> proposal isn't just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it
> and move on - that's how the system works yeah?
>
> Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far
>
> Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
> identify adult males.
>
> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
> that as I am a adult male.
>
> I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
> alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.
>
> We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
> airline attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM
> should adapt to these changes if there is enough interest from the OSM
> community.
>
> I am open to alternatives and have been paying close attention to the
> feedback this far.
>
> I think artificial is a better term than man_made and human_made but there
> may be another better term out there.
>
> Dave F raises a good point though. Rather than seeing this as a gender
> issue, perhaps we should see it as the opposite of natural - because
> broadly speaking things are either natural or artificial. I see this in the
> sense of artificial, these would be considered things developed or created
> by humans.
>
> Sure it's a huge task, but regardless of the amount of tags to change I
> feel the change is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a way to implement a
> way to change a tag in bulk without affecting the date of the changeset,
> and with OSMF board approval if it affects more than 100,000 tags for
> example.
>
> There are a few ways to go from here:
> 1: change man_made to human_made
> 2: change man_made to artificial
> 3: change man_made to some other term
> 4: leave man_made as is
>
> I'm certainly leaning towards the second option.
>
> I feel that the public vote by the wiki will be an interesting exercise
> and I am glad that I have started this discussion.
>
> If the OSM community decides to stick with man_made I'm fine with that -
> even if I feel that there could be a better term out there to define these
> objects.
>
> Look forward to further discussion on this topic and I appreciate all
> feedback given thus far - being both for and against.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:02 am Paul Allen,  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural,
>> humans are natural.  Therefore anything humans make is natural,
>> just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural.
>>
>> If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then
>> everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks,
>> gardens, etc. is man_made.
>>
>> OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy.  There
>> is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of
>> taxonomy.  Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses
>> have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall
>> Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall.
>>
>>
>>>   We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps in some cases.  Where such need arises it happens, such as
>> with healthcare.
>>
>> On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without
>> any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease
>> the feelings of those who do not understand etymology.  Are we
>> to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand
>> etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"?
>>
>> That the proposer profusely thanks those who put forward
>> arguments against the change whilst apparently ignoring
>> those arguments does nothing to persuade me of the
>> merits of his/her case.  It smacks of the so-called
>> "non-confrontational" tactics that might better be
>> called "passive confrontational."
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest in
changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested
in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't
just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it and move on -
that's how the system works yeah?

Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far

Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to
identify adult males.

I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
that as I am a adult male.

I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable
alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms.

We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to
airline attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM
should adapt to these changes if there is enough interest from the OSM
community.

I am open to alternatives and have been paying close attention to the
feedback this far.

I think artificial is a better term than man_made and human_made but there
may be another better term out there.

Dave F raises a good point though. Rather than seeing this as a gender
issue, perhaps we should see it as the opposite of natural - because
broadly speaking things are either natural or artificial. I see this in the
sense of artificial, these would be considered things developed or created
by humans.

Sure it's a huge task, but regardless of the amount of tags to change I
feel the change is needed. Perhaps there needs to be a way to implement a
way to change a tag in bulk without affecting the date of the changeset,
and with OSMF board approval if it affects more than 100,000 tags for
example.

There are a few ways to go from here:
1: change man_made to human_made
2: change man_made to artificial
3: change man_made to some other term
4: leave man_made as is

I'm certainly leaning towards the second option.

I feel that the public vote by the wiki will be an interesting exercise and
I am glad that I have started this discussion.

If the OSM community decides to stick with man_made I'm fine with that -
even if I feel that there could be a better term out there to define these
objects.

Look forward to further discussion on this topic and I appreciate all
feedback given thus far - being both for and against.

Kind regards,


Rob

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 1:02 am Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>>
>
> Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural,
> humans are natural.  Therefore anything humans make is natural,
> just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural.
>
> If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then
> everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks,
> gardens, etc. is man_made.
>
> OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy.  There
> is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of
> taxonomy.  Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses
> have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall
> Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall.
>
>
>>   We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.
>>
>
> Perhaps in some cases.  Where such need arises it happens, such as
> with healthcare.
>
> On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without
> any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease
> the feelings of those who do not understand etymology.  Are we
> to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand
> etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"?
>
> That the proposer profusely thanks those who put forward
> arguments against the change whilst apparently ignoring
> those arguments does nothing to persuade me of the
> merits of his/her case.  It smacks of the so-called
> "non-confrontational" tactics that might better be
> called "passive confrontational."
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging 
wrote:

I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.
>

Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural,
humans are natural.  Therefore anything humans make is natural,
just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural.

If you wish to argue that humans are a special exception then
everything we make is man_made, so buildings, bridges, parks,
gardens, etc. is man_made.

OSM tagging is not a good candidate for cladistic taxonomy.  There
is too much multiple inheritance to even consider that type of
taxonomy.  Houses are buildings, which are man-made, houses
have walls and walls are built, so man_made=house and building=wall
Except humans build walls, so man_made=wall.


>   We really should come up with more specific, accurate key tags.
>

Perhaps in some cases.  Where such need arises it happens, such as
with healthcare.

On balance, moving to human_made or artificial is a lot of pain without
any gain whatsoever with regard to map accuracy in order to appease
the feelings of those who do not understand etymology.  Are we
to next propose persontoric=* because those who do not understand
etymology object to a supposed gender bias in "historic"?

That the proposer profusely thanks those who put forward
arguments against the change whilst apparently ignoring
those arguments does nothing to persuade me of the
merits of his/her case.  It smacks of the so-called
"non-confrontational" tactics that might better be
called "passive confrontational."

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
Breaking change come with a cost.
Whether it is worth is a question should be asked.

在 2020年10月19日週一 21:04,Dave F via Tagging  寫道:

> Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a
> clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
> I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.  We really should come
> up with more specific, accurate key tags.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 19/10/2020 12:45, Jo wrote:
>
> It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change.
> Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
> resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will
> get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.
>
> Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really
> a dyke, but it looks like it.
>
> man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately
> understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not
> involved in the creation of the feature.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico 
> wrote:
>
>> Nice investigating Nathan,
>>
>> I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.
>>
>>
>> Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
>> Change man_made= to artificial=
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case  wrote:
>>
>>> Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current
>>> widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and
>>> somewhat distracting.
>>>
>>> A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a
>>> synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.
>>>
>>> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial,
>>> handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made,
>>> and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority
>>> (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not
>>> naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.
>>>
>>> Other sources:
>>> https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
>>>
>>> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made
>>>
>>> An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Dave F via Tagging
That in a project to create an up to date map, there are people involved 
who get upset over things changing is, indeed, weird.


DaveF

On 19/10/2020 13:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is really weird to me.

19 paź 2020, 14:51 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:

I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll
make the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to
it's conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.

It's false to think that just because an entity was amended
yesterday, it means it's up to date:
If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is left
incorrectly tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up
to date.

Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean
it's inaccurate.

DaveF



On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:

Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to
the present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5
years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that
was changed was a tag key.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick,
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann
mailto:r...@technomancy.org>> wrote:

*definitely* not something one does auomatically.


But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should
actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=,
regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=,
similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities
behind it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm
an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a 
clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy.
I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural.  We really should 
come up with more specific, accurate key tags.


DaveF

On 19/10/2020 12:45, Jo wrote:
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. 
Weigh the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and 
resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects 
will get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.


Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not 
really a dyke, but it looks like it.


man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will 
immediately understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think 
women were not involved in the creation of the feature.


Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico > wrote:


Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case mailto:nathanc...@outlook.com>> wrote:

Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in
current widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I
find it clunky and somewhat distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is
already a synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests:
"artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured,
fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" as options instead
of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM
"man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally
occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources:
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/


https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a
tag however.

Best,

Nathan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Yes, latest update date can be a hint
but treating it is as an argument to avoid
making an edit is really weird to me.
19 paź 2020, 14:51 od tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'llmake 
> the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken toit's 
> conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.
>  
>  It's false to think that just because an entity was amendedyesterday, it 
> means it's up to date:
>  If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is leftincorrectly 
> tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up todate.
>  
>  Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's
> inaccurate.
>  
>  DaveF
>   
>  
>  
> On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
>
>> Doing this would make over 3M objects have theirdate updated to the 
>> present, when the last meaningful change mayhave been over 5 years 
>> ago. 
>> It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date  when all that was 
>> changed was a tag key.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02Graeme Fitzpatrick, <>> 
>> graemefi...@gmail.com>> >wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at  20:39, Rory McCann <>>> 
>>> r...@technomancy.org>>> >  wrote:
>>>
 *definitely* not  something one does auomatically.

>>>
>>> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that  it 
>>> should actually be done!) 
>>>
>>> Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of  
>>> man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them  to 
>>> human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in  a Word 
>>> document?
>>>
>>> & no, as you can see, I don't understand the  
>>> technicalities behind it all, so please be gentle with  
>>> explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks 
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>> ___
>>>  Tagging mailing list
>>>  >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___Tagging mailing list>> 
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Dave F via Tagging
I'm in no way supporting the proposal, but this argument of 'it'll make 
the entities look fully up to date" is illogical. If taken to it's 
conclusion, nothing will ever be update again.


It's false to think that just because an entity was amended yesterday, 
it means it's up to date:
If a typo in a road's name is amended, but the road is left incorrectly 
tagged as 'tertiary' instead of 'primary' it's not up to date.


Likewise an entity previously amended 10 years ago doesn't mean it's 
inaccurate.


DaveF


On 18/10/2020 22:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the 
present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was 
changed was a tag key.



On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, > wrote:





On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann mailto:r...@technomancy.org>> wrote:

*definitely* not something one does auomatically.


But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should
actually be done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=,
regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to
using Find & Replace in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind
it all, so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Peter Elderson
Another illusion shattered... where is this world going to?

Best, Peter Elderson

> Op 19 okt. 2020 om 13:48 heeft Jo  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> 
> It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh 
> the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and resources/energy. 
> And then there is still the point that many objects will get new timestamps 
> for a change that's not really a change.
> 
> Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a 
> dyke, but it looks like it.
> 
> man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately 
> understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not 
> involved in the creation of the feature.
> 
> Polyglot
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>> Nice investigating Nathan,
>> 
>> I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.
>> 
>> 
>> Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
>> Change man_made= to artificial=
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case  wrote:
>>> Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current 
>>> widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and 
>>> somewhat distracting.
>>> 
>>> A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a 
>>> synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used. 
>>> 
>>> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, 
>>> hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and 
>>> constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if 
>>> not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally 
>>> occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.
>>> 
>>> Other sources: 
>>> https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/ 
>>> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
>>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made
>>> 
>>> An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Jo
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh
the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will
get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.

Anyway, artificial sounds like made up to me. artificial=dyke, not really a
dyke, but it looks like it.

man_made has the advantage of being succinct. Most people will immediately
understand what is meant by it. Almost nobody will think women were not
involved in the creation of the feature.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:42 PM Robert Delmenico 
wrote:

> Nice investigating Nathan,
>
> I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.
>
>
> Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
> Change man_made= to artificial=
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case  wrote:
>
>> Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current
>> widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and
>> somewhat distracting.
>>
>> A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a
>> synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.
>>
>> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial,
>> handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made,
>> and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority
>> (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not
>> naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.
>>
>> Other sources:
>> https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
>>
>> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made
>>
>> An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
No, it would still require a mass edit and breaking changes that will come
with disadvantages already listed by other participant of this discussion

在 2020年10月19日週一 18:42,Robert Delmenico  寫道:

> Nice investigating Nathan,
>
> I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.
>
>
> Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
> Change man_made= to artificial=
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case  wrote:
>
>> Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current
>> widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and
>> somewhat distracting.
>>
>> A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a
>> synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.
>>
>> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial,
>> handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made,
>> and constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority
>> (if not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not
>> naturally occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.
>>
>> Other sources:
>> https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
>>
>> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
>> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made
>>
>> An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Robert Delmenico
Nice investigating Nathan,

I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made.


Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal?
Change man_made= to artificial=

Rob


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case  wrote:

> Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current
> widespread usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and
> somewhat distracting.
>
> A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a
> synonym for “man-made” and is already widely used.
>
> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade,
> hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and
> constructed" as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if
> not all) of OSM "man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally
> occurring. Therefore "artificial" seems to hold.
>
> Other sources:
> https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/
>
> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made
>
> An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread nathan case
Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term that is in current widespread 
usage. As a native English GB speaker, I find it clunky and somewhat 
distracting.

A better gender neutral term might be “artificial”, which is already a synonym 
for “man-made” and is already widely used. 

Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade, 
hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed" 
as options instead of man-made. Presumably the majority (if not all) of OSM 
"man-made" tags relate to objects which are not naturally occurring. Therefore 
"artificial" seems to hold.

Other sources: 
https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/ 
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0053.html
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/man-made

An issue may arise if artificial is already being used as a tag however.

Best,

Nathan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen

Jo:

Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:

Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...


The same people that think that man_made=manhole* implies access:women=no

But i guess that would become human_made=humanhole

We will also have to make it healthcare=midhuman

Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning: Mensch, ser 
humano, etc?


Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses OSM data 
know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.


Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn > wrote:


On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
 > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
 > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
 > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
 > changed was a tag key.

+1

In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>>

http://www.rantroulette.com 
http://www.skqrecordquest.com 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Jo
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:

Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...

Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning:
Mensch, ser humano, etc?

Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses
OSM data know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much.

Polyglot

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
> > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
> > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
> > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
> > changed was a tag key.
>
> +1
>
> In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote:
> Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
> present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
> It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was
> changed was a tag key.

+1

In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made.
> 
> I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be
> little discussion to date.
[...]
I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.

At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
smacks of change for the sake of change.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread François Lacombe
Hi

I second the comments of Topographe below. Continuous improvement is a
major challenge.

Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 23:09, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

> And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of
> reasons.
>
Not all kinds of reasons: once the change has been reviewed, voted,
discussed by the community for a significant amount of time.
Providing a technical efficiency or a given tool doesn't mean we should
overuse that tool.


> The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the
> database.
>

If the system isn't suitable enough, let's improve it.
For instance: among other things, versions keep a record of a manual edit
of a particular user and allow change reversal.
Once a big change like man_made => human_made has been reviewed and
acknowledged by the community, do we need a formal version to reverse it?
How many DWG changesets have been reversed in the past?
I think the need to create versions for this particular kind of change is
very low.

All the best

François

Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 08:55, Topographe Fou  a
écrit :

> Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...
>
> This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way
> to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from /mm/dd
> following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx
> from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations
> for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this
> mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme
> improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working
> Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it
> in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for
> improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view
> but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply
> from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even
> simplify life of editors and data consumers.
>
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Topographe Fou
  Putting appart this 'man' vs 'human' debate...This reminds me a thinking I regularly have in minds: OSM shall have a way to tell all (registered) data users that "starting from /mm/dd following major change in the database will be applied following vote xxx from OSM community. Please see drawbacks, workarounds and recommandations for editors in wiki page www" . The idea would not be to trigger this mechanism every week but to be able to schedule few data scheme improvements in concertation with (and supervized by) a dedicated Working Group (DWG ? Or a contiunuous improvement wg ?). I think OSM already did it in the past and the wellspreading of its data shall not block us for improvements. Keys can be seen as arbitrary strings from a sw point of view but I think there is a benefit to have consistent keys, which may imply from time to time to review 10 years old tagging schemes. It can even simplify life of editors and data consumers.  LeTopographeFou   De: dieterdre...@gmail.comEnvoyé: 18 octobre 2020 11:09 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made  Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com>:On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote:*definitely* not something one does auomatically.But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be done!) Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in a Word document?yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot, directly on the database, in seconds or less.And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of reasons.The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the database.Cheers.Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Robert Delmenico
Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you.
Look forward to hearing more feedback.

Kind regards,

Rob

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 9:19 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
> Thanks everyone - all makes sense!
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks everyone - all makes sense!

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 10/18/20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> And the same applies to brains of people

It appears to me that the end game in this is precisely that, to change
the brains of people. OSM is just a means to and end in that quest.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



18 paź 2020, 23:00 od graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be 
> done!) 
>
> Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of 
> what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace in 
> a Word document?
>
> & no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, so 
> please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
And then whoever is using OSM data
also needs to update.

For obvious reasons we would not be
able to run find & replace in various 
code used by other people that is using
OSM data.

And the same applies to brains of people
adding OSM data using tags and
developers using OSM data and so on...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
> done!)
>
> Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of
> what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace
> in a Word document?
>
>
yes, technically it could be done with a bot or also without a bot,
directly on the database, in seconds or less.
And once we have done it, we could do it again and again, for all kinds of
reasons.

The problem is not the data at the origin, it is the system around the
database.

Cheers.
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Oliver Simmons
Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the
present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago.
It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was changed
was a tag key.


On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 22:02 Graeme Fitzpatrick, 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
>> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>>
>
> But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
> done!)
>
> Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of
> what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace
> in a Word document?
>
> & no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all,
> so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann  wrote:

> *definitely* not something one does auomatically.
>

But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be
done!)

Couldn't a bot be set to simply find all cases of man_made=, regardless of
what it is, & change them to human_made=, similar to using Find & Replace
in a Word document?

& no, as you can see, I don't understand the technicalities behind it all,
so please be gentle with explaining that I'm an idiot! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread François Lacombe
Hi

Le dim. 18 oct. 2020 à 16:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> > Yeah changing this is a multi-year project,
>
>
> generations...
>

Certainly, with the current tagging control plane.

That would only took ~3 or 4 months with more streamed practices and
appropriate communication.
This point reminds us we're not able to change tagging because consumers
are using it, whatever the input question was.
Such an argument never was and won't ever be a legit reason for me to
oppose to a change.

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> Yeah changing this is a multi-year project,


generations...

Cheers Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Rory McCann
Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, and *definitely* not something one 
does auomatically.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, at 11:42 AM, Alan Mackie wrote:
> This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks 
> every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation in 
> order to replace a term already generally considered gender neutral and 
> easily found in dictionaries (including bilingual ones) with more 
> awkward phrasing that doesn't even remove the detested string. 
> 
> Please don't do this. 
> 
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 10:11, Rory McCann  wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > > And all this effort achieve what?
> > 
> > The  liberation of all people from from gender roles 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Alan Mackie
This proposal requires the retagging of over 3 million objects, breaks
every existing rendering, editor and a huge amount of documentation in
order to replace a term already generally considered gender neutral and
easily found in dictionaries (including bilingual ones) with more awkward
phrasing that doesn't even remove the detested string.

Please don't do this.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 10:11, Rory McCann  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > And all this effort achieve what?
>
> The  liberation of all people from from gender roles 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Mikko Tamura
Love this proposal!

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 5:11 PM Rory McCann  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > And all this effort achieve what?
>
> The  liberation of all people from from gender roles 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 


*MIKKO L. TAMURA*
*Lead Advocate*
*Map Beks Initiative*

*Externals Head*
*Pilipinas Chubs X Chasers*

*Volunteer Mapper*
*OpenStreetMap Philippines*

*Contact Number: +639173290655*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Rory McCann
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, at 2:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> And all this effort achieve what?

The  liberation of all people from from gender roles 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging



Oct 15, 2020, 14:58 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From the 
>> database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen, 
>> character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize these 
>> strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is just a 
>> convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to replace the 
>> string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in all programs 
>> that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no difference to OSM 
>> (provided you use different strings for different keys/values), but it would 
>> make a huge differnce to the work of inserting/correcting/consulting data by 
>> human beings.
>> In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences in 
>> OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the 
>> objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will 
>> be an enormous amount of work. 
>> And all this effort achieve what?
>>
>
> Exactly. The human readable version of tags is done through things like 
> editor presets and partly via the wiki infoboxes, where they can be localised 
> into different languages and regions. The actual tag names bear zero weight
>
I would not go so far, large part of edits is interacting with raw tag values 
and "zero weight" is a 
significant overstatement

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
> the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
> character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
> these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is
> just a convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to
> replace the string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in
> all programs that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no
> difference to OSM (provided you use different strings for different
> keys/values), but it would make a huge differnce to the work of
> inserting/correcting/consulting data by human beings.
> In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences
> in OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the
> objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will
> be an enormous amount of work.
> And all this effort achieve what?
>

Exactly. The human readable version of tags is done through things like
editor presets and partly via the wiki infoboxes, where they can be
localised into different languages and regions. The actual tag names bear
zero weight and it's impossible to have them accurate across regions. My
favourite one is track vs trail, where for me track is narrow that you can
only walk and tail is wide that you can drive on, but for other parts of
the world it's the opposite, track you can drive on and trail only walk.
That doesn't mean we'll change up highway=track as it's the description on
the wiki that matters not the name of the tag key and value.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Volker Schmidt
May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From
the database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen,
character strings. OSM uses a convention to make it easier to memorize
these strings by using GB-English terms for them, but, I repeat that is
just a convention to help our human brain facilities. If you were to
replace the string "man_made" at every occurrence in the database and in
all programs that use the database with "3rgnJI)oò-" this would make no
difference to OSM (provided you use different strings for different
keys/values), but it would make a huge differnce to the work of
inserting/correcting/consulting data by human beings.
In addition, replacing one string with another string in all occurrences in
OSM, apart from creating completely unnecessary new versiones of the
objects, is trivial. Changing all products that make use of these data will
be an enormous amount of work.
And all this effort achieve what?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:22, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a
>> man, as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
>> suitable for gender neutral language,
>
> everything refers back to men. I propose to use German as the language for
>> tags.
>>
>
> Hahahaha.  That would resolve "man made."  By replacing "made."
>
>
>> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
>> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
>> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
>> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>>
>
>  It only needs a little re-tagging.  Simple.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Paul Allen
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man,
> as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
> suitable for gender neutral language,

everything refers back to men. I propose to use German as the language for
> tags.
>

Hahahaha.  That would resolve "man made."  By replacing "made."


> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>

 It only needs a little re-tagging.  Simple.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Robert Delmenico
Good point Martin. Someone else has suggested artificial as another
alternative. I'm open to all feedback at this stage and happy if anyone
wants to add onto the proposal the pros and cons of that's allowed.

Rob

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 7:38 pm Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> >
> > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is
> commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been
> adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias.
>
>
> I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man,
> as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not
> suitable for gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I
> propose to use German as the language for tags.
> It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those
> millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that
> many tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t
> be as much change as it may sound initially.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly 
> accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that 
> way due to past practices of gender bias.


I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, as 
in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not suitable for 
gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I propose to use German 
as the language for tags.
It might look like an impossible endeavor at first glance to retag those 
millions or billions of objects, but if you dig deeper you will find that many 
tags are already more German than English, so ultimately it wouldn’t be as much 
change as it may sound initially.

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-14 Thread Paul Allen
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:57, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

>
> I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is
> commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been
> adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias.
>

You are correct that there was a change of usage.  In Old English "mann"
meant "human" of any gender, with "wer" meaning "adult male."   When
"wer" fell out of use, "mann" was used for both "human" (of any gender)
and "adult male."

So you are wrong to imply that some sort of denial of gender bias
retrofitted "man"
as a gender-neutral term.  it always was a gender-neutral term, although it
has
latterly taken on an additional meaning.

The references you give in your proposal discuss the problems with
introducing such a change to tagging.  They point out that editors and
applications often hide raw tags from mappers anyway.  They point out
the headaches in changing established tagging without any benefit to
the map itself.

I doubt this change would be even one small step for a human, let
alone one giant leap for humankind.  Don't have a cow, wer.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-14 Thread Robert Delmenico
Hi,

I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made.

I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be little
discussion to date.

This is my first proposal so forgive me if i've missed something out on the
proposal page.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/human_made

I understand that there are around 4 million tags with man_made on them and
it would be a huge task to change them all, but perhaps if this is
considered for future tagging.

I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is
commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been
adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias.

Regardless of the outcome of this proposal, this is a worthy discussion to
be had in my mind.


Looking forward to your feedback

Yours,

Robert Delmenico
rtbk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging